This forum is for discussing religious issues. The same standards of behavior apply as are spelled out on our home page in the introduction to Speak Out.
Post a comment
New Speak Out starts now!
"Why Scientists Have No Faith in Science"
Interesting read regarding how some Christians accuse atheists of having their own faith, which is absurd...
"To state it bluntly, such faith involves pretending to know things you don't. Behind it is wish-thinking, as clearly expressed in Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
And on the seventh day it came to pass that another person posted a comment.
I have reason to believe that someone else will eventually post. I hope that I have the faith to believe that.
As far as I have read Missouri and acouple other states are going to enforce or deal with the Obama care mess.
It appears that God has died (once again). Can we expect the extremely religious to stay out of government and schools and perhaps quit pushing their social agenda on the rest of us? Me thinks we are a few decades away from that yet.
I think religion will always be with us as a last refuge of the desperate and hopeless. That despite our capitalistic effort to provide a secular similar last avenue of hope, the proliferation of casinos.
Occasionally the hopeless in their own minds have their prayers "answered". The source of their good fortune being anything other than a result of randomality is unprovable. Nevertheless witnessing such random action encourages those still striving to keep trying whether that is paying to roll the dice or paying for God's intervention. They believe faith comes at a personal cost and don't mind paying what little they have for even a shot at a minor jack pot.
OKR, you are definitely correct for the reasons you stated why religion will be with us for a very long time. The trend is that the more highly educated the citizens become, the less likely they will believe in the supernatural, although there will still be a group that clings to a hope of life after death. That is a crutch some cannot give up. Believing in the supernatural as in awe of nature or the universe and feeling an underlying presence of some kind is certainly understandable, and I have no beef with that. Believing in any religions dogma is, frankly, ridiculous. That being said, I don't have a beef with that until that dogma is used to affect behavior in our government or schools. Pushing ignorance in the name of religion is totally unacceptable.
EIEIO, I might consider going to links you post IF you would give a short description of what ideology (or even just a fun thing) they represent. That is, let us know why you think it represents what you think or what you are against. I would recommend any posts with just a link be deleted.
A Secular Thanksgiving Day Thought...
"As another Thanksgiving has come full circle and we again come face to face with a bounty of foods set before us that in most ages would have been relegated to princes and rajahs, let us not forget that this day flows naturally from the wellspring of Gratitude and Grace -- of humility and realization that we as a race are not sufficient -- that we have never been islands unto ourselves. And we should further acknowledge that although a great remnant of Americans have not bowed their heads to the false Spirit of the Collective, there still exists a legion of invisible shoulders that we now stand upon for which we are compelled, by what is best within us, to give humble thanks."
I thought this appropriate on this day.
Penn is quite a weird guy. Doesn't look like (or sound like) his band will be together long. He needs to stick to magic :-)
In our own neck of the woods, we have a high school student from Fayette Mo who is standing up against the irrational behavior of adults who are pressuring students to join in prayer in school. This young man is both courageous and intelligent as witnessed by this article:
Is it just the Christian faith that people don't want pushed on them?
What about Muslim? Liberalism? Atheism? etc.?
It seems all most people are afraid of is the truth. I kind of like the truth myself but it also comes with a moral responsibility that most people don't want. If I can't practice or uphold my faith why should you be able to force yours upon me?
RR3: "What about Muslim? Liberalism? Atheism? etc.?"
None of them should be "pushed" in our education system. Do you think the teacher at Fayette should be allowed to ask the students to pray with her, regardless of what religion it is?
RR3: "It seems all most people are afraid of is the truth. I kind of like the truth myself...."
There is no "truth" in regard to religion except in each person's own opinion. Your Christian belief is a matter of your faith, just like the Muslim belief is their faith. Neither should be taught in our public schools. That should be reserved for their specific church or mosque. If you disagree, tell us what the truth is that should be taught in our public schools?
If your "truth" is that Christianity is right, and another person's truth is that Mohammed's teaching are right, and my truth is that there is no deity that exists, then how can any of the hundreds of religious groups be allowed to promote their "truth" on anyone else in a public funded institution? If you were part of a small Christian group in a Muslim country and your school instructor took time out to have everyone kneel to the east and join in a prayer to Allah, would you not feel alienated? Even if they told you that you did not have to participate, as a young person (or any age for that matter) you would be subject to ridicule by other classmates and at the very least feel left out and alienated. Why can't you see this to be the "truth". You can choose your friends (based on religion if you want) and you can choose where to worship freely, that is what our constitution allows, but you cannot choose to promote your religious views in government or public schools. You can stand on the corner and proclaim "your truth" to all that will listen, but you cannot come into our public funded schools and promote "your truth". In the public school systems and in our government, the truth is represented by our laws, which is an attempt to promote the common good for everyone. By the way, your reality that there is some almighty god watching over all of us and imposing his will represents delusion to me and a growing number of rational, secular society. Nor do I believe that a teacher should be allowed to put a group together to discuss why atheism or agnosticism is the only rational world view. And even though that is my "truth", I don't for a minute believe that should be thrust or pressured on a group of students, regardless of what view represents the majority, which is what our constitution also says.
There seems to be no problem teaching the religion of evolution oh I'm sorry the theory of evolution. Why not present the theory of creation? How can critical thinking be taught without the student being able to choose. By the way evolution should be taught as a theory not fact, the same should be for climate change or global warming. But we all now that facts would show the hoax that they are. Just an example of dumbing down the populace so they can't make informed decisions unless they are taught to think about things other then what is pushed upon them. Therefore we have a large percentage of the population that don't think, only hear soundbites of what the lamestream media wants you to hear and they get to breed and vote.
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
The truth is there for those that choose to seek it. The beauty of it is that it is not forced on anyone unlike evolution, climate change, etc.
Easy question rr3. There is a Theory of Evolution. There is only a Hypothesis of Creationism.
rr3: "How can critical thinking be taught without the student being able to choose."
and then you reference "Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse"
You dare to compare the "scientific theory" of evolution to such horoscopish dribble? Several on this blog have tried to inform you about what the rigor of a scientific theory involves, but you refuse to acknowledge that definition accepted by all of academia. All you do is quote from a book that is as clear as a horoscope and put down accepted facts. Have you no shame? On second thought, I'm glad you are back with your irrational religious views for all passer byes to see. Perhaps a few that read this will be able to shed the shackles of ignorance that religion bestows on some of our fellow man who do not think for themselves.
Again OKR you succinctly said in one short sentence what took me a large paragraph... right on!
Former Editor: "why the Bible should be carefully included in high school.."
I have no issue with that, unless you want to teach it in science or give it any more credence than any other religion. If taught, it should probably be in a philosophy class just as a separate section about religions of the world. But, then you must open the door to discussion of all aspects including the various other religions, agnosticism, and atheism. You'd then find delusional parents complaining about the school trying to negate all their irrational indoctrination of their child. They "can't handle the truth".
RR3's comment on church and state, of which he has been totally schooled on in the past, but still refuses to acknowledge... Smart Dog's response to you in the general forum section was so profound that I can only assume you have no rebuttal to anything he said. However, if you disagree with any of what he said, I'd love to hear it? I'd like to just add that judicial interpretation of our laws is all that really matters; certainly those who claim to know what the bible (or Koran) means have no weight in a rational society.
America is losing it's moral standing at a rapid rate. It is so bad that a communist leader can say they are the moral compass of the world. It hasn't happened overnight but over nearly 40 years of murdering babies. Is it always right to murder babies because it is convenient? We have seen the decay of the family unit because of welfare. We are experiencing the attack of the marriage unit by the gaystapo. Why do we tolerate approximately 2% of the population pose such a danger to society. Gays account for over 60% of all aids cases, they usually have multiple partners and seldom live past their fifties many never reach fifty. We can see what it has done in other countries but yet we are content to force Americans to accept a lifestyle that is so dangerous. God doesn't tolerate it. Read about Sodom and Gomorah, that was not only dangerous but it was deadly. People are groaning in an increasingly immoral America.
"When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan" (Proverbs 29:2)
We have seen the chief export under this president is immorality. They propagandize evil by defining it as a 'basic human right'. We should all accept murder of the unborn, sexual deviancy, redistribution of wealth and any number of other evils. Countries that have never stood against these things are now pushing back because they don't want it. LGBT and other groups are not tolerated in many other countries and rightly so.
They can see the downfall of America, can we?
Wow rr3! Where did you get the nugget of nonsense that gays seldom live past fifty? It is preposterous.
I notice that you no longer support any of your utterances with a link that establishes even an iota of credibility. It leaves us with the impression that most of what you say arises from your credulity.
An after thought; don't drag out that scientifically discredited, debunked, and flawed Cameron Report funded by that right wing propaganda machine the Family Research Council. It does not make your case.
RR3: "America is losing it's moral standing at a rapid rate.."
I think this might very well be true, but not for all the reasons you think. Excluding the extreme population explosions across the globe and all the negative aspects of that, I believe our society and many others around the globe are continually struggling toward social justice. We take big setbacks in social justice and common morality, but in general, the oscillation between good and bad has trended toward the good. We continually make mistakes that get us into wars that end up harming other societies, and appear to be very slow learners. We in the US have continually pushed for more human rights, including the right for a woman to choose what to do with her own body and the right for loving couples to choose who they can live with. I propose that the primary roadblock to further improving our moral standing is from the groups that you, RR3, support, as with anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-science, and anti-anything that your interpretation of your book of parables leads you to believe. Although it is these extreme "hate anything that is not the way you believe" groups that causes major setbacks to our march to social justice, the good news is still that the trend keeps working its way to the positive. When religion loses its bigoted and strong influence on government and education, that is the day we track faster toward a world of better moral standing with social justice for all. Trying to hold on to the way you and other irrationals believe is moral is the real reason we are losing that moral standing.
Well said RT. I long for the day that rationality quashes emotion based rationale.
Sam Harris - Morality and the Christian God. This 10 min YouTube video makes the best rational case on how religion can poison everything I have seen. If you think you really believe, yet think you are a rational person, DO NOT WATCH THIS:
For Muslims, it is even more difficult to renounce the irrationality of their religion, because they can suffer more than just being shunned by their family and friends; they can be killed. Yet, their is hope that even the Muslim religion may some day lose it's grip on their extremely irrational followers. This is an interesting read:
Ex-Muslims of Scotland
Why do people thing morals are not based on God's character? If there is no God there are no moral absolutes. Some people think if it is legal it is moral. Is killing babies moral just because it is legal? Is being gay going to suddenly be moral when it is legalized? Would murder be moral if we legalized it? Would pedophilia be moral if it was legal? We could go on and on but the fact is that without God you legalize anything whether it is moral or not.
Legalizing the murder of unborn babies has led to the attempt to legalize gay marriage. What's next? Legalize pedophilia, they are using the same argument the gays did 30 years ago. How young do we go 12 years, 10, 8 why not make it legal for pedophiles to molest babies and if they(babies) don't like it then they can kill them. Hey if it is legal it doesn't matter if it is moral or not.
We are putting judges in place that are ok with sharia law that would permit a man to behead his wife for being disobedient. Where are the feminazi's on this matter? Then there are those that will accuse me of pulling these facts out of thin air and not providing evidence. It is all there you just have to read it but I know you won't if it don't fit your anti-God agenda.
The facts and truth will always prevail and it doesn't matter if you want to believe it or not. Just like God will prevail and he will say to most "go away for I never knew you". Do people really think that legalizing gay marriage is the solution to any problem? The gaystapo are giving religion a pass right now so they can get their agenda but as soon as their agenda becomes law they will push to make it illegal to speak out against them. Religious freedom will disappear by calling it hate speech and punishable by law. Will all you liberals agree that they need that right too? Probably because it will also fit the anti-God liberal agenda and it will be to hell with the Christian's freedom of speech.
All these things will come to pass in some form or fashion, just like 5 years ago I tried to tell all of you that Obama is a liar. Will I be saying "I told you so" on some of these matters too?
RR3: "Why do people thing morals are not based on God's character? If there is no God there are no moral absolutes."
Ok, RR3, here is the deal... there is no God, the universe is amazing regardless how it was formed, and most of us live extremely good and moral lives without imagining some supernatural being is snooping on us from above. There is no difference in thanking God than thanking our lucky stars. Most religious people are quite benign with their belief, but those of you who keep pushing an interpretation of your holy book written by tribal people are less moral than many of us who do not believe in such nonsense.
"What's next? Legalize pedophilia, they are using the same argument the gays did 30 years ago. How young do we go 12 years, 10, 8 why not make it legal for pedophiles to molest babies and if they(babies) don't like it then they can kill them. Hey if it is legal it doesn't matter if it is moral or not."-rr3
You rr3 regularly bemoan the lack of your version of the Christian faith in our country. You envision that utterly despicable things will come to pass for the lack of it. You hint at times that you feel sorry for the vast majority of us who do not share your specific beliefs, your unshakable faith.
My friend I confess that I feel sorry for you. I regret that you have absolutely no faith in your fellow humans. I feel sorrow because you lack an understanding of legitimate science, and can not believe it. I feel sorrow that you do not believe that it is a readily observable instinct in we humans, as it is in most mammalian species to protect our young. How sad that you are so full of fear of reality that you must cling blindly to your interpretation of Christianity to assuage your horror that hell on earth will transpire unless a deciding majority believe as do you.
My hope for you during this winter season of good feeling and good will is that you may find enough faith in humanity to at least believe that there is no chance that we will molest our own toddlers and babies. May you come to see that your fears as to what will transpire are at most aberrations among humans and will never become a standard human behavior, anymore than they will among the beasts of the fields who are dumb to your message.
There are times when the fey and the realists may join for good causes. http://www.aol.com/article/2013/12/22/icelands-hidden-elves-delay-road-projects/...
Excellent post OKR! Your message that RR3 appears to have no "faith" in his fellow humans and assumes anyone not believing in his specific religion or in any religion could justify pedophilia is an indictment I hope he can admit is illegitimate.
RT in all the years that rr3 has been posting here I do not recall that he has ever admitted he was wrong, or mistaken about anything. That is likely because he considers himself a direct pipeline for God's pronouncements thus it is impossible that he be wrong. ;)
Good to see all you guys back again that post intermittently, and I wish you would post more often. News, NanaDot (if you are still reading) ya reckon y'all are gonna come back sometime?
Not-a-Diva - this sounds like a truly exciting party! Who knew that the religion speak out was the happening place to be? LOL for that invitation!
"Why do people thing morals are not based on God's character? If there is no God there are no moral absolutes."
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them. If I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because i know that i ALONE am morally responsible for everything i do.
There ARE no moral aboslutes. There are only the societal mores of the here and now, and of where you are raised. here and now it is morally wrong for a 30 year old to wed a 13 or 14 year old. 200 years ago? it was not. in biblical times it was not. so, is it morally wrong or isn't it? or does just that fact that it is now generally illegal in this country make it immoral?
Tell you what RR, prove that there is no other god, except the Christian one, with an argument that cannot also be used to disprove the Christian god, and i will convert. ;)
Well said AoG.
Is morality hard wired in the human brain; is it instinctual? Something to think about.
The Desire for direction, purpose, and structure is hard wired into our beings. Morality? not even close
I believe both, but I also believe it can be more environment than genetic. Some individuals may have a genetic influence to be cruel. However, as in Catcher in the Rye, children have a propensity to cruelty more so than adults typically. As I have said in the past (and something I am very sick to my stomach to admit), I went thru a very young childhood where I killed a lot of animals with apparent pleasure (around 7 to 10 yrs old I'd guess), but learned extreme compassion for all living things as I grew older. I don't even like to think about my past cruelty, but I know in my heart of hearts that I am the extreme opposite today. So, it was somehow learned for me.
This is Jan. 03 2014, have NOT used all my time on articles, tried to read an article and it said I had used all my time for month. Some one needs to get on the ball and take Dec. 2013 off/
I have been following that Oklahoma matter News. The Satanists are pushing hard for a statute of Satan on a throne to be erected near the Ten Commandments monument. Sounds like the Devil's work to me though I am still scratching my head as to which of the two acts is more so. ;)
Thanks for the link News. I got about 5 minutes in and had to quit watching and will try and pick back up again later. It is something I am very much interested in.
Perhaps this blog is experiencing interest directly proportional to that of religion, or at least I can only hope.
You are very naive if you think anything you put on the internet, especially Facebook, is private.
Oops, soory guys. Wrong forum.
Even the famout Bill Nye (the Science Guy) scoffs at the overly religious, and easily "Wins Over the Science Crowd at Evolution Debate".
"Unprecedented Attack On Evolution 'Indoctrination' Mounted In Missouri"
The ignorance of this representative is an embarrassment for our state!
This story is the way real Christians and a real church that teaches about the bible and Jesus should treat anyone that is living in sin. Sin is just simply a life without Jesus. The more you know about Jesus the more you will love him. Or you can claim you know about Jesus and never love him. Jesus is never shocked by what people do.
When Two Lesbians Walk Into a Church Seeking Trouble
Propoganda is the stuff the Catholic church wants to teach you, or the Jehovah Witness, or the Mormons, or Liberalism the stuff any cult brain washes you to believe. Christianity is unique because no one is forced to believe. All that is required is faith, and repentance and that cannot be faked it has to come from the heart.
See news thats the typical low information response. There are Christians among Catholics despite what the Catholic church teaches. If you are Catholic because of what the church tells you then you may not be a christian. If you believe the bible and choose to be Catholic then you could be a christian. You can't be a christian because you are a catholic no more then you can be a christian because you are a Baptist.
The Catholic church will tell you if you do what the bible says to be a christian that it is not enough. They add to it. They are apostate.
The Bible says that women should keep their mouths shut and learn from the men when in church. This preacher cites specific scripture to back it up. I am wondering rr3 as such is scripture, in your mind the direct word of God, how do you get your wife to keep her mouth shut in church so that she can learn from the men?
I hope you enjoy this enlightening sermon. ;)
Seriously rr3 my basis for posting the link to that declaration by a preacher was to illustrate that people who are striving to live a just Christian life interpret their written guide posts differently. Thus they wander on different paths.
Given (for the sake of argument) that the Christian God is considered to be a loving god among other qualities; would it not follow that such a god would see all those who struggle mightily to understand, and adhere to that god's word to be equally worthy? There are many who do just that (the best that they can) in varied Christian persuasions.
It seems to follow that any of those adherents who disparage other such adherents may be blasphemers usurping that which is the provenance of that god, not man. Though I reckon that opinion is based on interpretation of one sort or another. ;-)
Any religion that falls away from Jesus and the bible is apostate. The Catholic church worships Mary, some pray to Mary, nowhere in the bible does it teach that Mary can hear or answer prayers. Mormons worship many Gods, the Quran claims to worship the same god but strays far from the bible, Jehovah Witness don't believe that Jesus was resurrected and there are many more cults out there that lead people down the wrong path.
If I am clear as to your expressed opinion rr3 every one who follows the Bible and Jesus Christ to the best of their ability, not worshiping any other than the triune is home free to Heaven. Is that it?
Anyone that accepts Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour and repents of their sins will be saved. It's in the bible all you have to do is read it.
We have all sinned, none of us are worthy.
Jesus loves us and if we sin against and infinite God then we deserve infinite punishment.
Both of the religions with millions of followers claim that if I don't follow their holy book and subscribe to specific teachings based on the interpretation of men who claim they know the interpretation which is also clear to them. Furthermore, we will be condemned to an eternity of torture for not following the right religion. Wow, I need to pick the right one. Some of the sects within each religion claim the same fate if I don't choose THEIR specific sect. And to top that off, all holy books have very specific sections that go against my personal desire to treat all my fellow humans with dignity and respect. Our bill of rights represents far superior guidelines on how we should treat each other than any holy book I have ever read. And RR3 wants to guide us on how to interpret his selected versus of one of the many world religions as to how to act so that we won't end up in eternal torture... how could anyone respect such viewpoints? Once again, it shows that religion poisons everything!
As much as I love science fiction and special effects, as well as Russell Crowe, I can't muster up any desire whatsoever to go see the new movie Noah. I guess that is because that biblical story is way beyond the realm of even scientific imagination, no matter how much BS allowance is given. But, that's the bible for you!
Why do people believe in science without any evidence? Is it faith in their assumptions? Maybe!
There is no evidence that man descended from a common ancestor, the Chimpanzee. We have no transitional evidence just pure speculation to make it prove whatever you want it to. Man always wants to place God in their science realm which is their justification not to believe. God said that man would take pride in the things they know and would make their knowledge their God.
Jesus was divinely conceived and came to this world as fully man and being fully God. He came as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, and all we have to do is accept him. If it wasn't for that we would still live under the law and have to give blood sacrifices for our sins. Now we know PETA wouldn't go for that.
Science cannot contain God.
If I'm understanding your reckoning rr3 liberals have just as good of a chance of getting into heaven as conservatives. Do you suppose your god cuts them more slack than you do? ;)
What if chimps descended from man?
Interesting concept IT. That would go a long way toward explaining why fundamentalists believe as they do. Devolution! ;)
George Carlin on the sanctity of life; just for grins hear this dead man talking. http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/videos/video/george-carlin-why-does-god-keep-...
As we see from the comments that God cannot be contained by science. He existed before anything. I know I cannot explain that but neither can you.
We are constantly bombarded to believe things that would negate that there is a God or any higher power. Of course unbelievers(low information) can be led to believe anything. Things like global warming, that a pregnant woman is carrying a fetus not a baby, and what is really funny is that Jesus is a liberal because he helped the poor. Sure he helped the poor but he didn't give a monthly check so they could remain poor.
Really what is wrong with being poor? I have been there but I chose not to stay there. It motivated me to help other people choose not to remain poor. Now that is where you help people. Do we have success stories about people that used to be on government assistance for years but they want to thank the government for making them a better person and now they have a good job or own their own business because the government was good enough to help them. I don't hear about any all I hear is how the number of poor keep growing and the political party claiming to help don't seem to care about the human destruction they are causing.
God doesn't keep people poor, but government does. The numbers tell the destruction but the low information news never reports it or they blame it on someone that is not even causing it. We have more people in poverty now then we have ever had, yet we have spent over 20 trillion dollars in the past 50 years to help. Are we helping? I don't think so.
I think everyone should believe in God and God wishes that they would but he knows it won't happen. I do know if you have nothing you will always have God. Paul in the new testament always rejoiced in the Lord because of what he had. Even when he was in prison or beaten he rejoiced. He knew that he was destined to a better place and he worked hard to tell others about him. This is man that killed Christian before God saved him. We see all through the bible God didn't pick the rich or intelligent to do his work. He even picked a murderer so why do you think he can't pick you?
The truth is rr3 that believing in God takes a leap of faith as rational inquiry does not provide proof of any gods existence.
Some folks are comfortable with, and able to make that emotion driven leap. Others are not.
I have not observed a difference in masses of people who are believers, and masses of people who are not believers in a supreme deity. They all screw up regularly.
Having said that I assure you that I harbor no ill will toward people of faith on account of their faith. I do scorn those faithful, or faithless who insist that all others believe as they, or use theology, philosophy, or even their understanding of science to encourage causing harm to fellow humans, or other inhabitants of our planet.
Rr3 one other thing I noted from your recent well written post is that you seem to use knowing and believing interchangeably. Give that some thought if you don't mind my friend.
God is only a feeling one can have. There is absolutely nothing backing that up. And, if you choose to be a deist and believe that a supernatural force started everything (evolution included), then I have no problem with that. Being a deist is very benign and causes nobody any harm. That is, until you start claiming to know things that you cannot know and that your god intervenes for you because you live your life a certain way. And even that would be ok if you kept it to yourself. But when your hallucination tries to direct the way others live their lives, that is when you become a negative force for the rest of us. Please take your little farmer's almanac of a holy book from whatever religion it may have been the driving force, and keep it to yourself. How crass one must be to think they are in direct communication with a super natural power while the rest of us pitiful souls must rely on you to tell us what you are being told. Religion is and always will be of no more value than a snake oil salesman
You all make some good points but RT mentions when belief is forced on anyone it becomes a problem. I believe that to be true but why you or you're non-belief always want me to conform to the world? We are supposed to have freedom of religion in this country but liberals are constantly bombarding our freedom because they want us to act a certain way.
Why are they afraid to allow a bible in a school when they have no problem with a koran?
Why can't we pray anyplace we want to but a child in school is told she can't even have a silent prayer before she eats?
Why are they afraid to offend someone if we have a prayer before a public meeting or a school function?
I like the pledge of allegiance but I won't be offended if you don't honor or respect it. Why should you be offended if I pray at a public event? Just don't participate or leave. I don't go to a Catholic church and pretend to be offended because I don't want to kneel all the time. If I go to public event and they are doing anything offensive to me, I can choose to stay or leave. It's no different then if you don't like whats on tv, change the channel.
I would like to go to a Kingdom Hall just for information so I could be a better witness to them when they knock on my door. I wouldn't go there to confront them or cause trouble, because it would be my choice if I went.
The real problem is when liberals and those that claim rational thinking always want to suppress my belief but I should have no problem with theirs. Only God can make you believe all I can do is tell you about him. I don't think that is forcing my belief on anyone.
I would suggest rewarding teachers via Merit, not Tenure.
That's the way we can improve the educational system.
RR3: "Why are they afraid to allow a bible in a school when they have no problem with a koran?" Where do you come up with this RR3. WE have a problem allowing ALL religious doctrine in our schools and government.
"Why can't we pray anyplace we want to but a child in school is told she can't even have a silent prayer before she eats?" That is allowed. Just because someone monitoring the lunchroom was misinformed does not at all mean that is policy.
"Why are they afraid to offend someone if we have a prayer before a public meeting or a school function?" If a school or government meeting officially condoned any particular religion other than your specific belief, that would not be fair to you. You can pray to Jesus on your own, and the next person can pray to whatever god they believe in, but it cannot be condoned by a public institution. You would be offended if you attended a public meeting and they asked everyone to kneel facing the East to pray to Allah wouldn't you? You can pray all you want and when you want, your beliefs are not to be officially sanctioned in any way. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Good job RT. We need to keep all superstitions out of our government.
Except liberalism, right!
No superstitions! How silly is that statement? We allow Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and we call the Christmas break a winter holiday. Jesus Christ was a real person if you want to believe a historical document. There are many historical figures we believe existed just because they are written about and they are accepted in the schools.
If I was at a public meeting led by a Muslim and they all knelt to pray I would not because I am not Muslim. If I was offended I would leave but I would no infringe upon their freedom to pray. Now if they wanted me to kneel also then that would be a different matter. That is what is so hard for liberals to believe, they don't understand freedom. They constantly want to impose their beliefs on us but we are supposed to be tolerant while they are not.
As a Christian I still believe that a person should believe and worship how they want. I only have a problem when they want to restrict my freedom and impose their's on me. But when you believe something that is built on lies then allowing freedom would allow something that may be better or people would actually see the lie for what it is. That they cannot allow. So if you believe in liberalism, then you can't allow truth so you have to eliminate it.
To me, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the virgin birth, the parting of the sea and Noah's Ark are all equally preposterous and silly. I disbelieve every bit as fervently as you believe.
Every single doomsday sayer has been wrong up until now or we wouldn't be here. What are the odds of this guy being right?
So has any prediction by a climate change or global warming doomsayer came true? No! Yet we have millions that believe it and a president that stated that it is a fact. Those that do believe want to push it on everyone that don't.
Every prophecy in the bible has come true. 100%
So what do you choose to believe?
RR3, consider this about your "no failed" prophecies.. "Most of the prophecies from the Old Testament, like those fulfilled by Jesus, are only "fulfilled" within the stories of the New Testament. In light of the Bible being a work of fiction this is no big deal, the writers of the NT simply wrote stories involving characters who fulfilled the prophecies made in the OT stories. As for the prophecies that are claimed to have been fulfilled by actual real life events they are vague prophecies that could easily be applied to a plethora of events. There are cases where the Bible makes very specific prophecies but to no surprise these are the ones that have failed:
Isaiah 17:1 "An oracle concerning Damascus: See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins."
FAIL: Damascus is still inhabited today with well over a million people and there was never a time where it ceased to be a city. It is widely known as being the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world.
Isaiah 19:4-5 "I will hand the Egyptians over to the power of a cruel master, and a fierce king will rule over them, declares the Lord, the LORD Almighty. The waters of the river will dry up, and the riverbed will be parched and dry."
FAIL: The river mentioned here is the Nile which never dried up and is still one of Egypt's greatest natural resource.
Isaiah 52:1 "Awake, awake, O Zion, clothe yourself with strength. Put on your garments of splendor, O Jerusalem, the holy city. The uncircumcised and defiled will not enter you again."
FAIL: There are still uncircumcised people living in Jerusalem even today.
There are a bunch more, but these should suffice for now. Want more?
RR3: "If I was at a public meeting led by a Muslim and they all knelt to pray I would not because I am not Muslim. If I was offended I would leave but I would no infringe upon their freedom to pray."
If you went to a Marshall city council meeting and they officially started EVERY meeting with a prayer to Allah because that happened to be the majority religion, you would and should be offended. If you think your specific religious prayer is important, you have every right to do that, hopefully before the meeting started and you did not interrupt the meeting with your particular manner of prayer. If the majority was atheist and they started every meeting by proclaiming there is no god that should make everyone uncomfortable and offended as well. Religion and/or philosophy have their place, but it is not in our government.
News, that was hilarious. I think even religious people would get a good laugh out of that... well, maybe not ALL religious people :-) Thanks for the link and I recommend for everyone!
We can't prove that god exists and we can't prove that he does. However, over the last couple of hundred years, we've been able to prove EVERY phenomenal physical occurrence that used to be thought of as an act of god actually occurs predictably with physical laws we have derived by science. Asteroids, tsunamis, lightning, earthquakes, at one time were only explained by some deity's disapproval with the way things were going. So, although science cannot ever prove the nonexistence of any of the variations of gods that are believed in, science has been able to disprove that all the major events once attributed to their god, are indeed natural events. Basically, we have disproved ALL major events that people used as proof there was a god. All that is left is that god is just a personal feeling some people have and some people don't. Neither the bible, Koran, nor any holy books constitute any form of evidence. Essentially, belief in a god is personal and irrelevant outside that. The reasoning that once existed as evidence for a god have all been refuted by science. There may not be an answer as to "why" we exist, but there is an answer as to "how" we came to exist, and we now know it sure didn't start a mere 6,000 years ago and that Jesus could not have walked on water or rose from the dead.
Empress: "Rational Thinker, If we followed RR3 and allowed the Marshall city council meetings to turn into a Religious slam contest then no public business would ever get done. People would be competing to see whose God was the biggest and baddest!"
Possibly, but the real fear as that specific religious beliefs would be used to justify new laws derived from interpretation of that religion's holy books. This means much more than the ignorance surrounding such old laws as "the blue laws". The real fear is that we could drift towards a government run like the Taliban or any of our right wing Christian religious groups. It's not that government wouldn't get done, it's what new laws would be invoked in the name of religion.
Consider this a subtopic if you will my friends.
At some point most of us have to accept some things on faith if we are to believe them. I am not speaking of just a god, or gods, but also the announced results of math, and science, those two wonderful vehicles that convey us to knowledge.
The reason I say that is that most of us do not have the mental brilliance to thoroughly understand all the Einstein, Hawking, etc. crowd proclaim. If we are to believe it we must accept it, even though we do not understand it all. Is such acceptance not a form of faith?
For me personally religious faith is a non-starter, because of the lack of any verifiable evidence that it is any more than the justifications, myths, and dreams of mankind.
On the other hand I do rationally understand science, at least as far as my interest, and ability allow. However, when I hear pronouncements that I do not understand in totem, the best I can do is say that is probably true, they have been right as far as I can follow it, so it is likely true that they remain on a correct course. I take some comfort in believing (there's that word again) that due to the rigors of science if not correct at the moment, there will eventually be a course correction. Do I without any doubt accept that the status of scientific revelation to this point is absolutely correct, impervious to error? No, for that would be faith based, and that is a sticky wicket no matter the application.
Typo: Not in totem, instead totum.
But News, Newton's laws, and Darwin's ideas about evolution were not without error, so anyone then that had the arrogance to declare that they absolutely were in their entirety fact, was wrong, and absolutely basing such declaration on faith. Do you really believe that the status of the entire body of science today is without any error; that there will be no new discoveries that cause revision in current conceived notions?
It is my understanding of science that it is a progressive enterprise, and at all times, in Darwin's day as now, a work in progress, subject to adjustment.
I have another thought for you to consider News. Is not a belief in the infallibility of the brightest of humankind not a form of faith?
Good discussion tonight guys; Thanks News, Empress, and RT. See ya down the road. :)
Empress: "News & RT, I understand that you think the awe and mystery of life can be reduced to scientific knowledge or religious ideas or God's and Goddess's from the past."
Sorry if I give that impression, as nothing could be farther from the truth. I look out into the night sky with just as much awe, respect, beauty, and mystery pertaining to life and the vastness of space as anyone. I don't, however, assume that the mutual feeling I get is due to supernatural forces that I can somehow lump into the "god did it" category. That awe and mystery does not stop with staring out into space as it is also present when I watch my grandkids play, when I hear music that causes my tribal instinct to dance, or the mystery of love and sex, and art. Those emotions are not unique to those who believe in a supernatural being as they exist in all of us, with some of us embracing those emotions more than others. The difference is that I do not attribute the unknown to something with such a simple explanation as a singularity such as a god. The universe is way more intriguing than that. To me, using god as an explanation diminishes the real beauty of life itself.
News it is my understanding that Newton was wrong about gravity and the smallest of particles. Science is not my forte so in all humility I am receptive to correction. Go for it.
Here is a link that I just found that better explains what I was alluding to. http://crosscut.com/2011/08/02/hanford/21132/Was-Newton-wrong-about-gravity/
Thanks E. :)
I forgot to address Darwin, sorry about that News. There were errors in his hypothesis.
Do you not agree that is so? If you do then you must also agree that the state of science at any given moment may endorse erroneous concepts. I hold the position that science is a work in progress, subject to revision from time to time, largely because of the fallibility of human kind. I also wonder if there are not constant changes in the universe that may occasionally force a change in perspective within the scientific community.
News you said "No Newton was spot on with gravity...thus his law of gravity. He defined its effects and set the law of gravity. It has not changed since then."
Is it not true that though Newton's "Law" of gravitation is superb at predicting the path of a spacecraft among the outer planets of the Solar system, it breaks down when large masses are involved, such as that of the sun. The precession of the aphelion of Mercury can only be explained by Einstein's general relativity, which is a refinement of Newton's Law taking into account the slight bending of spacetime near the sun? If it is true then Newton's Law is in error, and in fact has changed since its conception.
What say you?
News I think I am about done with this topic. I do want to clarify my purpose before I relinquish it.
I would be a fool to not embrace the scientific knowledge that human kind has so brilliantly developed. It is not at all my point to pick it apart. That is an impossibility for any sole genius, let alone a relative dullard such as me.
Just as skepticism is a primary nourishment of good science, it also nourishes the likes of me. Thus I am incapable of accepting every idea science has produced with a faith so strong that I swallow whole all scientific laws, believing they are inviolate, and never subject to revision. The fact that we humans are fallible, each and everyone of us, and thus capable of fallibility, each and everyone of us, also plays a part in my more cautious acceptance of the wondrous body of work that scientists have created.
I can no more accept science on absolute faith, than I can religion on absolute faith, even if Jesus walked the water across a pond I was fishing, and smacked me up side the head. I would still remain cautiously skeptical. It is my nature, and I accept my nature.
The last thing that I want to say is that I richly enjoy our discussions. You provoke me to be the best I can be, and what more personally beneficial result could I hope for from discussion. Thanks for that my friend.
Empress: "All creatures and all things must eventually return to the source. "All things vanish into the Tao. It alone endures".
To me Taoism, Buddhism, Zen, are some of man's futile effort to condense the mysteries around us to something that makes you feel like you understand something you cannot grasp. These philosophies are not substantially different than religions in that they rely on individuals essentially "following" a way of life prescribed by someone who claims they know the answer to the mysteries, or worse, following someone who admits they don't know the answers. I believe that once you start "following" any philosophical way of life, you give up some of your own unique way of perceiving yourself and how you fit into the universe. Science is the way we continually define what is real around us, which helps separate reality from mystical conclusions. Science is a dependable tool, and has nothing to do with religion. I subscribe to science, but following anything is against my make-up.
OKR: "I can no more accept science on absolute faith, than I can religion on absolute faith.."
I'm enjoying your and New's discussion on faith of science, and feel like you are both right in that much of it depends on semantics. OKR has said, which is true for me as well, that some of the great conclusions (proofs) of science must be taken on "faith", since I cannot really comprehend the complexity of what science often concludes through proofs beyond my abilities. As much as I want to, I cannot really comprehend the full ramifications of relativity. However, the problem is when you use the word "faith" in science that the semantics become important. It is not really "faith" in science, it is "confidence", and that is a very important distinction.
There is no evidence beyond revelation, authority, and scripture, to support religious "faith".
In contrast, you have "confidence" (which could be called "faith") that penicillin will help your body fight certain types of bacterial infection. It is not unlike the continued misunderstanding of the difference between how some religious individuals perceive the word "theory".
OKR's statement that science often finds changes to existing scientific theory is true, but so is the point that News makes about it being a matter of precision. Perhaps some minute particle not yet discovered will alter very slightly Einstein's simple equation on relativity. However, the existing precision of most scientific proofs will remain intact enough to support pragmatic space exploration. I will continue to maintain "confidence" in the scientific method.
"It is not really "faith" in science, it is "confidence", and that is a very important distinction."-RT
Dead on RT, I struggled with that in the back of my mine all through the discussion with News. It was a fun discussion. I definitely believe I had the weaker position in the discussion because about all I had going was the semantic sleight of hand. ;)
I do hope that everyone enjoyed the Easter weekend. The celebration of a saviour that suffered and died for all, that he knew would believe. He rose the third day as proof that he overcame sin and death so that we may have eternal life. Such a blessing to be a Christian and to know death will offer us more then we can ever hope for on this earth.
It is a hard to imagine a God that can love us all. Even those that mock him, deny him, curse him, and hate him. Those that worship worldly things already have their reward.
"Those that worship worldly things already have their reward."-rr3
What about those of us who worship nothing, and aren't looking anywhere for a reward r? Do you think that we are more or less happy than those who worship worldly things? Additionally I have, and likely you have as well, known people who purport to worship "The Lord" who are overbearing grouches and appear very unhappy; as if it is a sin to be happy? Are they on the path to Heaven?
By the way r, I hope you had a wonderful Easter, and were not bitten by the Easter Bunny. :)
From the "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink" category: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/21/big-bang-poll-american-doubt_n_5184931....
Everyone worships something just like everyone believes in something. If it is not God then what?
Atheist claim there is no God but they spend a lot of time being offended by something that doesn't exist. Wonder why?
I don't understand the thought process that would possess a person to hope you have a happy Easter and in the same sentence hope you didn't get bit by the Easter bunny!!! Really!!
Especially since Easter is not about a rabbit and I know I never mentioned one in my comments.
I am not offended by your god or any other manmade god. I am offended when someone wants to shove their religion into our government.
Ah lighten up r, where's your sense of humor pal? Careful now, you are sounding like one of those dour individuals I was just talking about.
Yeh News, and can you believe that some of them don't believe in the Easter bunny either? Shocking!
Here is some interesting science thought in a song, well, sort of a song by Peter Mulvey:
Also gives you a good idea of just how small we are in both size and time. I think I'll go drink a couple of beers :-)
rr3: "It is a hard to imagine a God that can love us all. Even those that mock him, deny him, curse him, and hate him."
Yes, rr3, hard to imagine, especially if you read the bible and realize that god is one vindictive supernatural force you would not enjoy being around. But I'm sure you'll be fine with him rr3. You just better hope you don't get to watch him meet out all the torture he's threatened the rest of us with, unless you have a really strong stomach. I do not mock him or curse him because I do not believe any of those tribal fables. I mock (feel sorry for) only those who have led their entire life believing in something that is not there. The god of your bible does not exist, only in your mind. One thing you have failed to come to grips with is exactly what kind of eternal life you think you'll have. Will you just be sitting around in total bliss like a major acid trip (ok for a couple of hours maybe)? Will you be naked with all those men and women that always thought being naked was "dirty"? Will being eternally happy only involve being in HIS presence? Can that make you happier than watching you children and grandchildren take their first steps? Now I don't have to worry about any of that stuff, rr3, but perhaps you should think about what it really means to be in the presence of your god for eternity.... rather scary if you ask me.
desert Rat: "I am not offended by your god or any other manmade god. I am offended when someone wants to shove their religion into our government."
Right on, DR! You beat me to this one. Let me just add "or into our schools".
Liked the Mulvey bit RT. Thanks.
I don't understand why someone will say they are not offended by God but will say they are if someone tries to bring into the schools or politics. It is also evident that someone that doesn't believe has no idea what God is like. They can read the bible but they don't understand.
I will defend anyone's right to be offensive as long as they don't have a problem with me being offended. Why should I be the only tolerant one? Why is a Christian not allowed to express their belief in a school or politics? Any other belief is freely expressed and the Christian is supposed to tolerate it. We are supposed to remain quiet even when views are expressed in direct opposition to ours.
We are told to tolerate sin and to laugh at any joke made by any idiot mocking the God that I worship and respect. I quess if I acted like the Muslim I should threaten to kill you for mocking my God. That's why Christians are so easy to step on is because many do not take a stand for their faith.
And News I have to hand it to you. I greatly respect your last comment even though I know our beliefs and opinions difer greatly. That is the way we should dialogue and I hope I can learn from it.
You nearly always miss the point rr3, or more likely choose to ignore it. Any way one more time, if it is public (meant for all) keep folk's religion whatever it is, out of it. If some folks want religion in their schools they have the right to with their own dollars establish them. They do not have the right to use everyone else's dollars to promote their special brand of religion.
Why can you not accept that? Why do you so selfishly want your desires accommodated out of my wallet? Don't you think that is a greedy overreach on your part?
rr3: "Why is a Christian not allowed to express their belief in a school or politics?"
Depending on the setting, YOU have every right to express YOUR beliefs. But, the teacher does not have a right to teach Christianity or any other religion in the classroom. If they are allowed to stray from their curriculum and promote their world view, I think it obvious why that is not and should not be allowed. The problem is that YOU believe your world/religious view is the only true way, and because of that, you can only accept Christianity to be promoted in a classroom. That is an extreme view, not even shared my most Christians. And even if it was shared by the majority, it would not be fair to people of other relgions and those of us who are agnostic or atheist. While between classes, you can certainly discuss religion or whatever else you want with your fellow students. We have the right to ignore you as well.
The bible is so riddled with parables and philosophical points of view, along with downright error, not to mention cruelty and unfair treatment that I can only believe that people with variations of delusion would suggest that the bible should be used as their guiding force in life. I am saddened by such a notion and I would never trust anyone that uses such a book to try and guide others. There is a higher rate of accuracy and truths associated with Confucius sayings than exist in the bible. Delusion should garner no respect. Someone who continuously preaches and quotes the bible is normally someone who few people care to be around and often avoid where possible.
Favorite comment I ran across today on another blog: "Faith is either naivety, lazy thinking, deliberate ignorance or a scam... there's nothing good about it." It seems there are a large number of rational people, yet surveys continually show irrational religious folk to be over half. I can't help believe that the surveys are either wrong or old beliefs are changing very rapidly as more and more people discover they are not alone when it comes to the realization that religion has been bullying them into irrational and insincere belief. Religion is nothing more than a bullying fraternity of irrational people. Unfortunately, there are a lot of very good people that just can't break away from the threat of eternal damnation.
It is the inclination of many of us to seek prosperity in one manner or another, in one form, or another.
With that in mind, and wanting all of us who choose to congregate here for conversation to have every opportunity to find some sort of prosperity I reflected. Reflection revealed to me that for the most of us opportunity is dwindling in America.
Nevertheless I did after considerable thought think of one little opportunity, and source of hope that remains. Thus I am sharing with you my good friends that there are seventy five to eighty jelly beans in a cup. Opportunity in the form of large jars of jelly beans of which we are free to guess the number, one closest wins a major award is out there. Now that you have the tip I provided you will be a leg up on most of the others who are desperately seeking prosperity in America, and are reduced to guessing at jars of jelly beans.
Now get out there and go git em! America, is this the land of opportunity, or not!
Who don't love jelly beans? Well, I like them all but the licorice ones, no matter what color they are.
That's O. K. RT. I bet you didn't like the licorice babies of our childhoods either. Have you considered that your repugnance at racism in any form may have been the catalyst of your distaste for licorice?
Nevertheless I am sure you are grateful that hope is still available for us all, at least in an uncounted jar of jelly beans. I suspect that there are those who cling to that hope, but are frustrated by their inability to accurately gauge anything, who start by angrily trying to shake all the black ones to the bottom. Those kinda folks will never be winners. ;)
On a more serious note, the extinction of hope is occurring on many levels. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/its-the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-i...
Since some of you don't want a religious view expressed in a public or school setting would it be fair for me to ask that certain other 'religious' beliefs also be banned?
It's ok to lie to our children about the 'religion' of global warming when we don't have any. The actual science does not prove it unless you add all the assumptions made to it. You see I can take actual known facts and assume things and I can make the outcome whatever I want it to be 20,50 or even 100 years from now. It is very easy to make children believe this but we have adults that actually believe this stuff. The people that promote this should all ride bicycles and walk everywhere they go but they have a carbon footprint bigger than most cities. Then people still believe it and is ok with it being taught in our schools and promoted in politics. Should we not include this under the guise of seperation of church and state.
Yet it is ok to teach our children that being gay is ok regardless of the belief. Children should be able to get an education and prepare for their future without the state forcing a belief on them that may be contrary to what they are taught by their parents. It is the 'religion' of the Gaystopo. It promotes promiscuity and violence but we should teach this to our children?
Then we are ok to teach our children that since they are going to have sex anyway, then here is a condom and if you screw up and get pregnant then we will support you to get an abortion without your parents knowledge. This is the 'religion' of choice allowing murder by anyone that wants to make that choice, in fact abortion is promoted as the preferred choice. If they ever decide that all the aborted babies would grow up to vote Demwit then it would be illegal tomorrow.
What about the 'religion' of liberalism? To not allow any opposition to their cause. Any opposition needs to be squashed. They are taught not to accept any facts that oppose their agenda. In that effort they promote lying because it is ok to lie to further your cause. Yet you always say it is fact even when it is not. Anyone that opposes has to be discredited personally because they are stupid and can't be trusted. We have Demwit politicians actually saying this.
Some of you will try to say that I don't get it but I nailed it perfectly. It is all an effort to eliminate God from our lives. You see if we have God we don't need Demwits and we will likely not vote for them. So they lie to you, make you believe it and like a bunch of mind numbed robots you go and vote Demwit. Then they are in charge and we are in the mess we are in and what do they do, they blame someone else that were not in charge and likely had nothing to do with it. When we take God out of the equation then we get what we are seeing today. Do we want to continue down the road to ruin or do we want to get some common sense and some people that put us on the right path. I don't want Christianity taught in our schools but we should not be forced to hide it either. We need God fearing man in politics that can take a stand against the nonsense that some of our politicians are forcing upon us. They wouldn't need to force us to pray but I would like to know is they are Christian that they practice it so they can make better decisions. Our Muslim president is definitely not making good decisions.
Come on rr3, you are comparing imaginary apples to real oranges. LOL
rr3 it would be difficult to not agree with Empress' comment. Where's the love?
Beyond that you loose all credibility when you, after all these years remain in the credulous minority who refer to our President as a Muslim. To me, and most others that is ill disguised race hatred.
It would be interesting to read your slant, and from whom you take your cues regarding the "Jewish problem". Achtung!
You have a scary amount of hate in you old fellow; so much that it is hurled at numerous targets, all whom are DIFFERENT than you.
I don't want to speak for empress, but I think she's making two points. One is that there is a difference between A mutual dissagreement between friends and ignoring blantantly hurtful speech because he's known to disagree with you.
The other point I believe she is trying to make is that r's comments are hateful, if not hate speech. Schools telling kids being gay is ok "promotes promiscuity and violence"? Are you serious? How is that any different than stating 'telling kids it's ok to be black promotes promiscuity and violence'??
And it's supposed to be ok because that's what they learn at home?
Matt 7: 1-5 right??
If you want to give a blogger credit for stating a minority opinion, give him credit for stating his point well, not just for showing up. That post seemed ignorant, angry, and hypocritical at best, bigoted at worst.
rr3 you just don't get it in so many ways. Paramount among those is that you somehow can not fathom that folks are different in many ways. Just because you believe that you would turn into a monster unless God keeps you in a fundamentalist strait jacket, does not mean that all folks are that way. I know you do not believe it, but there are many paths to living a good, and moral life. You have found a path that works for you. It is vain of you to assume that unless we all believe, and act as you do we as individuals, and as a society are immoral failures. What hubris!
I will say that you are very proficient at promoting preposterous positions, and traffic on these blogs always increases when you expound. Thanks for throwing us slow pitches to hit out of the park I guess. ;)
I've always thought that belief is all that it takes for something to be real, at least to the believer. I also think that there is a very clear difference between your belief in your bearded man and r's belief in his bearded man. Yours provides you an avenue to spread joy and generosity. Not only are r's beliefs factually inaccurate (not the god stuff, but his comments on gays and the religion of science) but he think his entitle him to have his opinions taught to children and judge others harshly. There is a very clear distinction to me.
I think veganism is wrong any way you look at it. That doesn't entitle me to claim that vegans are bad parents who are prone to emotional outbursts because of their eating disorder or to try to claim a class called "the joys of bacon" should be taken by incoming freshmen.
I'm not so quick to throw you in the same lot with r. I'm also not saying he isn't entitled to his opinion. But judgement is judgement, and falsehoods are falsehoods. And for santas sake ;) leave schools out of it. I'd rather my child be shown how to reason and find his own beliefs rather than blindly follow any thing I or a teacher said about god, sexuality, or any other contentious topic.
Yep News keep 'em knocked up, and barefooted; also blacks were better off when they were slaves. Where do these nasty nut jobs come from? A better question yet is why do so many people vote for such bizarre folks when they run for office?
America has become a very scary place; a haven for fascist fools that for some reason many folks have taken a likin' too.
"You can't keep "Old Dixie down", even though more folks have to gum their food in the southern red states than anywhere else. I'm tellin' ya that it is a real paradise down there.
Sedition: 1.conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
synonyms: rabble-rousing · incitement to rebel · subversion · troublemaking · provocation · rebellion · insurrection · mutiny · insurgence · civil disorder
News, Flight of the Concords was funny as heck... good beat too! Don't be scar'n Empress away with that :-)
The only thing good about the long RR3 post is that it again exposes the irrationality and some downright hatred that the religious right is known for. His view (or his trust in the Fox network view) that global warming is not real, that Gays are immoral because it says so in the bible, that pro choice means being for the murder of babies, and that not believing in some supernatural being(s) that he believes in will mean eternal damnation and torture for the rest of us, is very much what Empress and TheBirdMan were accurately depicting. I am almost under the impression that News knows RR3 personally somehow, as I don't know how otherwise anyone could identify the other as friend? If News is categorizing friendship based on time of discourse regardless of disagreement, then we have a very different understanding of what friendship is. If RR3 is a friend of News' based on that, then perhaps he considers the rest of us close lovers :-)
The Snowden discussion should probably be taken over to the political blog as there are others who care less about religion discussion over there that might be interested in your discussion. When you start debating legalese regarding whether he was charged or not, the discussion and references could get quite large. For me, the issue is whether Snowden was a whistle blower or whether he was involved with treason, and quite frankly, I doubt we'll know until someone can go thru all the information he has taken and released. However, all of this discussion would benefit everyone more in the political blog.
News, I have no immediate concerns of the development of AI, although hypothetically it could bite us in the end. So could many things that science is involved with in the pursuit of knowledge. This includes cloning, infectious disease research, fusion, and much more. I believe the pursuit of knowledge in AI is more important than worrying about something that may not be achievable (a philosophical debate of its own). I personally do not believe AI is achievable, and maybe it is just a matter of semantics. I believe it is more like Artificial Intelligence Simulation. I have programmed computers most of my life, and although I am not involved in that field, at the end of the day all solutions are binary, currently decided by millions of simple yes/no decisions programmed by humans. We would have to write code that could generate code, which we can do, but even that generated code would be the result of binary options we coded, and it would only "simulate" a human's decision process. Again, this is not my field of programming expertise, nor do I claim to be right, just my opinion based on my personal but limited experience with complex coding. It will be even more interesting as science continues to learn more and more about how our brains actually work. Perhaps they will be able to map it down to trillions of 1's and 0's that would define each of our brains no more than a customized program. When they do that, I certainly hope they can help RR3 out as I'm quite sure he has several subroutines of the brain that are missing some 1's :-)
An interesting read regarding science vs naturalistic views...
"there seems to be a thriving subculture on the internet that emphasizes the naturalistic fallacy, fear of anything technological (including irrational chemophobia), paranoia about the government, corporations, and mainstream medicine, and embracing anything perceived as being contrarian, exotic, or radical. To this subculture science is either the enemy, or it is used (as Andrew Lang famously quipped) like a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination. This approach is simultaneously gullible and cynical."
Empress, we all have our own idea of what truth and morality is. Hopefully, most of those views overlap considerably. They certainly don't originate from any religion as the followers of major religions erroneously believe. Our morality is derived by our upbringing and experience throughout life. That is one reason some of our attitudes about social behavior can certainly change as we grow mature and older. Religion is a poor example of how we should act in general.
A glass holds half of its potential. An optimist would say that the glass was half full. A pessimist would say that the glass was half empty. An engineer would say that the glass was too big. That's three different opinions of the same situation. The fact is that the glass holds half of its potential.
This is apropos your statement: http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+little+blue+man+betty+johnson+lyrics...
"A glass holds half of its potential. An optimist would say that the glass was half full. A pessimist would say that the glass was half empty. An engineer would say that the glass was too big. That's three different opinions of the same situation. The fact is that the glass holds half of its potential.
-- Posted by desert Rat on Sun, May 11, 2014, at 6:40 PM "
I just want to know; who has been drinking out of my glass?
That News was almost as comical as this. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=church+lady+could+it+be+satan&FORM=VIRE4#vie...
It is still in the hopper News. The Oklahoma Fascist Council aka Oklahoma State Government is procrastinating and delaying action on it because they are fearful that they are going to lose this one somewhere down the legal path.
Mother said don't pull your sister's hair
Father said don't take the pennies leave them there
Then, rushing outside into the open air
where father castrated pigs despite their shrill screams
chickens lost their heads, lost any chance at dreams
as mother wielded the hatchet, directed a flopping dance of death
and sister cut up baby birds blown from the nest,
arranged pieces including hearts, an early homemaking test
and I airlifted platoons of black ants into red ant town
much enjoying the war that then went down
While brother at the pond enjoyed the mud and wet
smashing frogs with a rock turning them to silhouettes
and I remember the day that sis cuddled a wet kitten
and watched me climb a tree to put a baby bird back in the nest
As I sometimes can be indirect with poems I thought it might be good to give this one a title to provide clues to content: Morphing Morality
I guess when they excommunicate somebody, they remove all their posted comments? I hadn't logged on for awhile so I guess I missed one or several comments that took her (E) over the top. I really don't care for direct insult as it certainly causes the discussion to flow down to the lowest common denominator. Debate or point/counterpoint is what should be adhered to, although I recognize I have danced around the edge of calling some people derogatory names myself. My goal is to continue to strive for discourse over insult, a goal I may not always attain.
I think most of us want to stay on dialogue. Occasionally someone gets us fired up, we get too fired up, and subsequently too personal in our delivery. I have done that with rr3, and regret nearly every one.
I can't say enough how adroit he is at delivering a difficult poorly supported minority message. He is an expert at presenting the flabbergasting without batting an eye; an ace at "are you kidding me" announcements.
OKR: "I can't say enough how adroit he is at delivering a difficult poorly supported minority message...
You hit the nail straight on the head!!
News: "Its good that Mankind should be intellectually challenged and hypothesis tested -- no matter where that challenge may come from."
I agree with that statement. However, not one bit of that comes from RR3. Just throwing carp out all over the place and not logically backing up anything ever spouted off does not constitute an intellectual challenge to any of us. It's more of a challenge of futility.
I made it a point months ago to not even read rr3's or Jason's posts.
No sense cluttering up my mind with that stuff.
A total waste of time.
I am glad that News and OKR still engage them though.
Someone has to keep the lines of communication open. It just will never be me again.
I see your point Interested Too. However your posts are interesting too, so post more often if you're interested too. Sorry, I could not resist the play on words even if I did have to utilize bad grammar to get it done.
However, the message is sincere. :)
" However, not one bit of that comes from RR3. Just throwing carp out all over the place and not logically backing up anything ever spouted off does not constitute an intellectual challenge to any of us. It's more of a challenge of futility."-RT
Still it does stimulate us to present an edifying rational response deserving of consideration despite the unusual stimulus. The goal is not to change rr3's nor Jason's thinking, that is a non-starter, but rather to present supported rational opinion to others who participate in some manner on these forums.
True, OKR. Some of us still try to make coherent points in response to ridiculous statements. And I agree as well as our responses are really geared to others who might be just visiting the blog.
The problem with that, News, is that a true believer (about the same level as a true Belieber) does not listen to logic and has no use for the scientific method.
God is science and is also the final word, so they'd rather listen to a preacher with an on-line degree than a person of high IQ who has done his/her homework (literally).
Nuttin' can be done to fix that problem, but the truth wil eventually prevail; no matter how painful.
Did scientists just solve the bee colony collapse mystery? It will be interesting to see how much credibility science gets on this one, and from whom. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/05/smoking-gun-bee-collapse
Yes News; my point was will farmers, and urban green lawn fanatics choose to believe the science anymore than fundamentalists believe the science, when it is their ox being gored? I think not.
Further, I think the "corporate truth" response to this solid science will be accepted as a satisfactory rationalization by a majority of folks, not just the Xtian fundamentalists; Tea Party and other Republicans.
It is just another inconvenient truth to be ignored by set in their ways urban folks to save them the trouble of new better ways by using available organic remedies for their weeds. It is a deplorable response motivated partially by laziness; both physical, and intellectual.
It is certainly a more complex problem for our nations farmers, but deal with it they must. They know better than anyone what a disaster the loss of pollinators will cause. They must be creative in their response to these solid scientific findings. They also must demand with a united voice that Big AG join them in a search for viable alternatives.
Big AG would be fools to not capitalize on the situation, and instead see this as something to dispute to the end. At least they must quietly, even secretly, work like mad men to insure their own ongoing viability.
Finally consumers in general must pull their heads out of their rectums, and realize that their is a danger that food costs may become so prohibitive that it will swallow fifty percent of their income to just put nourishing food on the table.
I am not going to go into detail as to what remedies are already available, and those being developed to address this problem, there are some available, and more on the horizon. That is a subject for another essay.
I am going to close with the thought that I hope the time is near when those with their "golf course" lawns which get a daily soaking of precious water (another problem) are reviled. I will go even further to say that I am not totally opposed to prankster kids targeting those lawns with midnight raids in cars, doing militant lawn dough nuts on a regular basis. That crap has got to stop. Earth First! ;)
News I haven't used Roundup, nor any other chemicals in my yard and garden for twenty five years. My veggies are not eaten by critters despite that. After a number of years, at least in my microenvironment, nature is in balance.
I no longer water my grass, and let the Bermuda grass go dormant during the annual period of summer drought. I am noticing more of my neighbors doing the same. If I were to do anything additionally it would be planting native grasses in my yard.
Some would find that ugly, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
We here in the good ole U. S. A. are doing all we can to join our great ally Australia in water shortage.
It won't be in my life time, but I am concerned that we will one day soon have full blown water wars. All across our nation litigation over water rights is ongoing. The problem is that the losers in litigation will still need the water, and it will come to the point that the force of the rule of law will not deter folks from satisfying their dire needs.
Yup News, and that goes right along with; without water means without food, which means less obese people. I am so sorry that I won't be here to enjoy the coming paradise. ;)
You science guys may enjoy this one. Could Einstein have been wrong? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/29/quantum-teleportation-computer-network_...
I'm out of here. ;)
Hell, I don't know News, I'm not a scientist. I was just making the point that there are, and always will be challenges to, or questions about established science which are just another way that science is subject to continuous rigorous review. ;)
Water shortages, global warming, and most other negative impacts we humans have caused are mostly a product of massive population growth feeding our endless need to consume more and more resources. We must somehow agree that we need to attain global zero population growth so we can then have a chance to address these issues. Its like racing down the road with your pedal to the metal and running out of gas while trying to come up with enough fuel to sustain your over indulgence. What is standing in the way of zero population growth? Besides rampant ignorance is both religion and politics. Our countries political system is totally in tune with the economic approach of an ever increasing GDP while religion's misguided ignorance continually fights birth control. If the religious right would cease and desist, we'd then have a chance to promote scientific education for all and possibly then attain a consensus on how to work toward a solution. Very hard to be optimistic :-(
Just read an interview with a physicist that backs up what I posted, at least in my opinion. The interview with Victor Stenger is quite interesting and starts off with the question:
Dr. Stenger, you have said our addiction to magical thinking may "doom" humanity. Could you explain what you meant by "doomed"?
Here is the link:
I've been around, News. I peek in once in a while on my smart phone, but don't want to make comment unless on my desktop because of the time it takes to key stroke. I love my voice interface, but not practical when wanting to express something in detail. Even without zero population growth, there are some tough choices that could be made to alleviate global warming. However, if we could get a majority (60 pct?) of Americans to agree that acceleration of global warming could be reduced significantly just by a policy of zero population growth, then we'd have to agree on some approach to achieve it. The far and not so far right would never agree to any form of birth control, and they make up a large percentage. Then we have pure capitalists who would never agree that we need to quit pursuing an ever increasing GNP. We must keep laying these ideas out there and pushing for a better educated population in order for us to make better decisions as a society. Saying it is an uphill battle is somewhat of an understatement. I knew you'd like that interview!
Good stuff RT!
The thought occurs to me that as we continue to pollute our environment with nasty things, many of which lower the fertility rate of species including humans, and frogs, things that feminize males, and sterilize females of the effected species, we are likely to lower our birth rate whether we shape up, and do right, or not. It's not nice to mess with Mother Nature!
It seems to me that the Right is at least uniform in their disdain, and disbelief in intellectual authority. Yes they disdain science, and academicians, but they also discredit, disdain, and ignore Christian intellectual authority.
One would think that they would recognize that there must have been a reason that God "gave" the finest minds to certain individuals; that God "gave" some of those the "call" to understand, interpret, and expound the message of Jesus.
Yet the finest Christian thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas, Soren Kierkegaard, Martin Buber, and on, emphasize the necessity of adhering to the direct words of Jesus, even when in direct conflict with less loving declarations of the Bible. For instance Aquinas' discussions of the three conditions for a just war is in direct conflict with the belief of the religious Right, who never met a war, or an excuse for war that they did not like.
Their rejection of the God "given" capacity of the brilliant minds among their own Christian kind is a direct confirmation that they are an incorrigible, and scary, sorry lot.
Our advantage over fruit flies is obvious. We can study what happens. The same for Easter Island. We can see historically as well as scientifically what happened. The point I believe in question, which OKR emphasizes, is whether we can get enough on board to address what the science has proven.
"11 Kinds of Bible Verses Christians Love To Ignore" http://www.alternet.org/belief/11-kinds-bible-verses-christians-love-ignore?page...
Rr3 how do you deal with Bible verses that you do not believe, other than ignoring them? I know that I have lambasted your positions at times, but if I thought you truly believed everything presented at this link I would lambast your position more fiercely.
"The Bones of History" including how James Talent R-Missouri enters that dialogue. It is enough to turn your stomach.
Whispering in an ear so saeth the Priest
we must help govern to rid of the Beast
Yes said they as you say and welcome aboard
this ship will sail with the help of the Lord
So they begin a tortuous and twisted course
Hiding darkly away any cause for remorse
No sign of raped children nor brutalized women
All was well so it seemed, it became a given
And so it went on for decades then more
and no one knew what was behind a locked door
Muffled screams at last began to be heard
Please open that door, still the Church demurred
Then the people saw with eyes by tears blurred
Government by Church results in a hideous hell
all over such a nation will be a ringing a knell
They began to examine all the harm that was done
publishing all the transgressions one by one
800 small children found dead with the government church to thank
Baptized bodies found dumped unblessed in a septic tank
Note: you will need to read the commentary at the link provided at my previous post to fully comprehend what this old fool is ranting about this time.
I am wondering rr3 if you will agree to try to keep your Church out of State, if I will agree to try to keep State out of your Church?
Nice try OKR, but we already keep the state out of the church and they have their grasp strongly in some areas of our government, so why would he deal? Besides, he's convinced our government was founded on the belief of jesus and nothing could convince him otherwise :-(
Thanks for the Bill Mahr link News. He is fearless when it come to confronting religious doctrine from anyone.
News is there anything I can do to help you with your Santa Claus fixation?
This is one of those times that I wish all of us met up physically for coffee and conversation, but most of all so that we could stage an intervention to pull you back from your cult crisis.
Some how you have to let it go. I suppose that it is the first myth with which you were indoctrinated by family, friends, and the rest of your social environment. Obviously you were thrilled by it, and likely have used it as a crutch your entire life. For all I know you may be in a position to stand and testify to near miracles which you proclaim to have witnessed.
Never mind all that! You were strong enough to throw off all the other myths pitched to you as you grew up. Do not let this lingering relic be the source of your downfall from rationality.
I say for you. ;)
News after rr3 got all upset at Easter time because he thought I wanted him to be bitten by the Easter bunny (I didn't) just to be cautious I locked up the Easter bunny; just in case he bit rr3 of his own volition, and rr3 blamed it on me.
Well I still have him. If Santa comes with coal for me it truly will be sic em Bunny!
Speaking of rr3, where are you buddy? We miss the best that the Right has offered on these forums.
I think that there are people who read these political and religion forums who do not post. I think that they are of all political persuasions, though predominately left to center.
I do believe that there are some from the right who also read, but don't comment. I also think that they see rr3 as their spokesperson. Thus I think the readership does increase when rr3 is engaged, and on his game. They probably believe his every word, and wish they could say it as well.
So, if you guys on the right are reading this, chime in with a word of encouragement to rr3. He deserves it because he is the gutsiest one of you, and a champion of your causes.
"The Muslim Test how to expose the hypocrisy of the religious right" Also at the link a treasure trove of information about how to reduce the fundamentalist right to the sputtering incompetents they are at their core.
News on RR3: "I think what happened was that we won him over to our side with good, rational progressive arguments on the issues."
Sorry, can't buy this at all. His only value is that there are rational conservatives that see how ridiculous religion can sound (and some progressives as well) and it might help lead them to the inevitable rational conclusion that "religion does poison everything".
OKR on RR3: "So, if you guys on the right are reading this, chime in with a word of encouragement to rr3. He deserves it because he is the gutsiest one of you, and a champion of your causes."
If there are religious individuals lurking out there on this blog, more than likely they refrain from arguing their beliefs because of how ridiculous an extreme religious person sounds. I really believe RR3 is out there so far that he would be for a religious holy war to take power over our federal government.
RT why is it that there are mostly progressives, and religious skeptics posting on these forums?
Is it just because such as we have clustered here for a lack of exposure to kindred minds in our daily lives?
Could it be that more mainstream folks are able to carry on dialogues of interest and kinship in many facets of their social environments, thus have no need to cluster in rare environments? If so, are such folk not interested in the exchange of differing ideas?
It seems to me (unfortunately) were it not for rr3 we would be just similar monkeys speaking the same language from a common perspective.
Why is it that no other disparate voices care to be involved in the dialogue? Why does rr3 choose to do so? Rr3 your own answer to that question would be of value.
OKR, good questions. There isn't much activity on this religion blog in total, let alone from those that claim to be very religious. I have no idea how many, if any, actually come here and read postings. Most religious people probably feel intimidated because their beliefs are not rational (that's what "faith" is all about). So, for the most part, it can be difficult to rationalize an argument for which there is virtually nothing to back it up. There are those that can certainly make a passionate and an appearance of a rational argument for a god, but none that can really be convincing about any of the major religions having grounds to be true. Many of the most outspoken atheists don't think it is worth the time to debate those from the religious right because it is on one side rational arguments and the other side totally irrational. If all you can do is quote the bible or Koran, then it is a futile debate. If you take the side of religion and you want to debate things like The Big Bang and what happened first and what caused that, or the role of free will, then I believe you are really mixing philosophy with science, possibly promoting your concept of a deity, but not really doing anything to promote a rational argument for any specific major religion. Most religious people from Marshall reading this cannot come to grips with the obvious fact that Jesus did not walk on water, he did not rise from the dead, and he is not the son of god any more than you or I are, even if you want to hang onto to hope that some deity might exist. Beyond simply being a placebo for getting through life's struggles, religion can only poison reality.
RT, good answers. Thus the religion forum has necessarily broadened its scope.
I think the strongest debate specifically about religion was during a time when a feller named "Eastwood", and a nice lady whose name I can not recall joined rr3 on the Christian religious side of things.
It is really hard for skeptics to not reference science when discussing for instance, morality. The early question what is morality is followed by what is the source of morality and off we go. We (skeptics) just can't go with morality is what God says it is, and follow with God is the source. I also believe that there are Christians who do not rest upon that patently simplistic conclusion. Unfortunately we have not seen much of that here.
What constitutes morality appears to be unique to each individual with most having very subtle differences. Certainly the Jeffrey Dahmer's of the world display either a total lack of what most of us consider morality, or at best differ immensely. Those of us who ascribe to the "golden rule" (and it's derivatives) share a great deal with that concept. TGR is not based on religious belief at all, and one could argue that the idea of religion has its roots in those who felt the need to abide by TGR. Our subtle difference do allow for a wider view of how one should act toward others. Most of us liberals have a strong feeling that we need to go the extra distance to insure people in need are dealt with compassion and even aid. Most conservatives feel only the bare necessities should be provided and some suffering is needed to keep people from continually gaming the system. I believe both groups have compassion and believe their approach is the best way to handle it. I'm sure both groups believe in the basics of TGR, but I also believe that many strong conservatives do not fully understand how they would feel if they ended up in a situation of poverty and unable to provide themselves or their loved ones with basic needs or lifesaving health care. Most of them feel they have the things they have because they worked hard for it and changed the course of their life and that no matter the circumstances, they would have always been able to pull themselves up from such a poverty situation. This is where religion and morality crosses over into politics. The irony is that many of those who believe there is a Jesus do not let their actions (political) act out his teachings, while many of us atheists believe in actions much closer to what we see the stories of Jesus are trying to display. I do see great irony in that.
Some interesting thoughts on frontal lobe damage and serial killers. Is it a short leap to say that brain damage effects morality, another little leap to say that morality is organic in origin? Hmmm? http://socyberty.com/crime/a-killer-brain-a-look-inside-serial-killers/
Here's one from out in left field.
We humans use gestures to indicate specific emotion. Do you suppose that they are tied to a subconscious realization of the connect between thought, feeling, and specific body parts?
For instance, when we realize we have screwed up we sometimes smack ourselves on the forehead. Could that be a subconscious effort to jar our frontal lobe into a correct response, or out of brain activity that provoked an improper response?
Not saying, just wondering.
My coined word for today: wond
Definition: Something observed, or thought of that provokes one to wonder.
Used in a sentence: For me the tree's irregular growth was a wond.
I met her and she was ever after a wond of mine.
Do you ever wonder why your mind wanders when a wond appears?
Before my last three posts become a wond to someone, causing to wonder what has he been smoking, or if they liked them, where can I get some; a word of explanation.
Sorry, it is a natural high, that is a mental state provoked by my own mind. It is in some ways akin to free association, assuaged by relaxation techniques. After engaging in it there is a residue of refreshing calmness.
Come to think of it, it may be organic as I was a day dreamer as a kid, often lost in my thoughts. Maybe it is just that I have a far out frontal lobe. ;)
Interesting link, OKR. If some day science will be able to definitely identify a gene that makes an individual a serial killer, will the religious right condone abortions in those circumstances? Something to wond about :-)
hi guys ;)
Great to hear from you! I have been concerned that all may not be well with you, and/or yours. :-) Now I at least know you are still kicking which assures that the world is a bit better than it otherwise would be.
RT I doubt that the Religious Right would condone abortion even if it was established that certain embryos were destined to be serial killers. It is more likely that they would take care to train them from birth to stalk abortion providers.
Yes, OKR, and perhaps the far religious right would find that they have that gene already... it's called the crazy believe in woo woo gene. BTW, here's an article on my favorite secular VIP of the week (any guesses as to why?):
Nothing to do with the fact she is pretty RT?
Brains and beauty... winning combination! Hey, at least we have half of that.... too bad we don't have more brains :-)
Harmony over Hubris
We humans are ridiculously vain and hubristic. We, through good fortune and an extremely unusual chain of events over which we had no control were granted life on this earth. We through the process of evolution got even luckier when we became equipped with the chromosomal arrangement that allowed us to become the dominant species on Earth.
Now we claim that we have a right to life inclusive of the latest human zygote. There is no factual evidence that anything else in the natural world shares our fervor for that proclamation.
Our claim to a right to life is spurious because it is self serving to the point that it supersedes the right to life of any other living thing. It is arrogant because we believe we have earned that special right. In fact we had nothing to do with it, we are merely a product of evolution. We must some how divest ourselves of this illusion of superiority. If we fail to do so, if we fail to equally support all of life it is an ironic truth that we will bring about our own demise sooner, rather than later. We can not live as a species as long as possible without benevolence toward all living things for with out them we can not thrive.
The Indelibility of Slavery
Though photographs may be mirrors that remember,
they are but a blink of the eye to tortured souls enduring a near eternal legacy.
Such hurt can not be forgotten,it hides in corners of the heart.
It lies restless in the mind ever sensitive to small reminders.
You react to these words, brushing off, "get over it".
I can not though I, an old white man, never wielded the literal whip.
I did in my ignorant youth lash out with my tongue,
bringing tears to the eyes of a fine young black peer.
I can not forget that; I must not forget the collective transgressions of my tribe.
I recognize that the burden of my guilt is nothing compared to a burden of oppression.
Mine causes my head to hang in shame, the other bends the back under the load.
One more bad police officer.
I posted in the wrong area, sorry.
You know you are exactly right I cannot convert you only God can. God tells us that we must tell others and what better place then a religious forum. If you are not a believer then you must be searching for something to fill a void in your life that only God can fill. God also tells us to pray for others and so I will continue to pray for you. In fact our bible study tonight is on the subject of prayer so I will mention all of you on this forum. The power of prayer is awesome and we may not get results right away but God's word never returns void.
Praying for all of you.
Here's an example:
16SA-CR00218-01: Fellers, Charles Lee, born 1968, 1164 S. Ellsworth Ave., Marshall. Class D felony, driving while revoked. Prior and persistent DWR offender; sentenced to 2 years with the Department of Corrections.
2YEARS! Dumb **** that needed to drive to work.
Never did it before?
She's a Drug dealer..plain/simple.
I give up.
On it Clyde.
Let's get loose here. (Have fun)
If you were gonna rob something, at gunpoint.
Would you choose a small town theater on a Monday evening?
I would have asked for a large buttered popcorn and a box of juju beans. With the way concessions are.
Probably got a better take.
Let's have a party!
liberal hypocrisy is an oxymoron.
Religion is the enemy of the Liberal since it promotes morality and responsibility and suggests an authority set above Government.
Or...just look@ KMMO.
Copy the Headline with the date.
Date is very important.
Then Google it via the Browser of your choice.
Posting a comment requires free registration: